A Note To Readers: If you want to follow this from the beginning of the hearing and work toward the end, you can scroll to the bottom of the post which starts with the beginning of the hearing, and then work upwards, although each update works in the opposite direction, if you get my meaning.
**********************************************************
UPDATE 8: Whoops, they aren't taking a lunch break. So, now it's Alito.

They've been lowering expectations like mad, but it's clear he's going to be impressive.

He's humble, and believable so...and relaxed, and telling a story about his life. Make no mistake about it, he's an immensely attractive guy, and he's going to be tough to defeat.

Damnit, I wish I could believe that he can really leave behind all the positions he's taken on various issues, and approach being on the court beholden to no aspect of the legal movement in which he grew up as a lawyer.

Everyone she try and get a chance to watch him during this first introduction of himself to the American people, because that is what the Democrats are going to up against in trying to wrestle answers out of him, and trying to create a construct that will allow enough Americans to view his confirmation in other terms than their personal approval of who Alito seems to be as a person, and more in terms of how his views might affect them personally, where they live, and how they live. A tall order, methinks, but not one we or the Democrats can shirk.

Ah, the rule of law raises it's leonine head. He's for it; who'd a thunk it?

The guys is likeable folks. Robert Bork wasn't. He wore his arrogance on his sleeve.

Opening comments were very short; very, very short. Hmmm.
Not once during his brief statement did he look at the sheaf of papers before him, though he made an indication at first that he might be reading his statement. I suspect that was a piece of rehearsed stagecraft, though he did it well, and it was believable. Lots of good sound bites there, and no negative ones.

Our work is cut out for us.

I'll try and recover my notes and stick them in the appropriate update so at least we'll have a contemporaneous record.

So, Day One ends, stay tuned....
**********************************************************
UPDATE 7: Well, I just lost my update on Senator Graham et al because I overstayed my time allotment. Sorry about that; Graham's was a particularly important statement, and Senator Durbin, also lost for the time being, was particularly effective. I'll try and recover what I can remember and post it.

Right now, Senator Launtenberg is introducing Alito, after him Christine Whitman will do the honors. Before anyone gets mad at Launtenberg, he's the Senator from Alito's home state, so he's doing a pro forma introduction, although Whitman is starting off endorsing Alito, and there you have your liberal Republicans for you.

After this, they'll break for lunch and I'll try and piece together those last Senatorial statements if anyone is interested.

*************************************************************
UPDATE 6: First Break: I'm listening to NPR, right off the bat, I'm brought up by the moderator's (Daniel Swerdling?) first observation that it's like watching people from two different planets, I agree on that, but not on what distinguishes the difference; according to NPR guy, it's Democrats painting Alito as Darth Vadar, Republicans as the opposite. Nonsense. Luckily, Nina Totenberg is there to correct everything. Worth listening to NPR just for her, not because she mirrors a liberal point of view, because she is such a good reporter and analyst. Senator Graham is up next. Tottenberg mentions there's some discussion that Graham as been moot courting Alito...is that kosher?
*********************************************************
UPDATE 5: Senator Feinstein was tough, very tough. She went straight for abortion rights,and privacy. She was very specific, and didn't bother all that much with emphasizing comity. She placed special emphasis on the role that O'Connor has played on the court, making it clear that she doesn't think President Bush has the right to insist on changing the balance on the court, unless the Senate decides to ceed him that right.

Sessions of Alabama is up now. Standard issue about activist judges. Interesting pairing with Feinstein. Sessions has always been a nasty guy, he doesn't bother with comity, especially as regards all Democrats, even those who are his fellow committee members. So, Sessions is using part of his introductory remarks to answer some issues raised by Senator Kennedy, the point seeming to be that you can't trust what those Democrats say. During the lunch break I'll try and do a separate post on Session's objections to one of Clinton's appeal's court nominees where the issue was one of an American company using indentured forced labor in Burma.

Feingold is up now, then a fifteen minute break:

Russ admires Alito's legal qualifications, wishes him well, and vows, as with Robert's nomination, he is approaching this one with an open mind, which can hardly be doubted since he voted for Roberts, didn't he?

No one is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court solely because he is nominated by the President. Hope we hear more about that.

DeWine mentioned that the "advise and consent" function of the Senate is phrased with vagueness by the constitution, there isn't even a requirement that the nominee be questioned, but DeWine doesn't draw the obvious conclusion, that the founders left it up to the Senate itself how to carry out that function, the fact that nothing specific is required does not mean that any or all such requirements demanded by any particular Senator, or the Senate at large is unconstitutional.

Feingold went straight to the NSA controversy, but he also emphasized the need for Alito to be willing to speak openly on all matters pertaining to his judicial philosophy and past statements he's made.

Fifteen minute break is happening now....

*********************************************************
UPDATE 4: Kyle of Arizone and Kohl of Wisconsin were a perfect pair, both giving unremarkable reptitions of their side's positions' Kohl struck me as particular weak, but that's okay, it went by quickly.

Mike Dewine took a different approach, one I found just a bit startling. He defined the constitutional conflict as one between democracy and the Supreme courts ability to nullify legislation it deems unconstitutional. DeWine actually seemed to be questioning that right, which is a very hard right, Christian Coalition position. Give DeWine credit, he managed to make it sound as if what he is talking about is a problem of common sense over legalistic elites. The point is still bogus, because Republicans are so willing to abondonit as a principle when they find it necessary to get what they want. DeWine emphasized the confusion wrought by differing opinions by the same court on the same issue - confirming one affirmative action program, striking down another - pitting all that legalistic tinkering with good muscular use of ordinary American's common sense, as expressed at the ballot box. Well, there goes original intent; one thing we know about the founders is that they conceived of the Supreme Court, as they conceived of the Senate as a check on democracy unconstrained by constitutional elucidated protections for minority opinions.

UPDATE 3: Biden just finished his statement. Some of you may not believe me when I say this, and be assured that I've experienced those hair-pulling moments Biden can produce even in the most loyal Democrat, but put quite simply, he was magnificent. Relaxed, focused, eloquent, and best of all, he said something essentially different from anyone else.

This is a first impression so don't beat me up if I change my mind upon reading a transcript, but I would urge all of you to get hold of a transcript and judge for yourself.

Here's what Biden managed to do, I think. He put the entire hearing in the larger political context of an on-going American dialogue on the meaning of the constitution. He focused less on the recent Presidential assumptions of power, and more on the conservative judicial movement. He reminded everyone that it isn't just liberal groups who organize to get their voices heard, and that there is entire body of essays and opinions that prides itself on a revisionist view on constitutional interpretation, though it claims to be the genuine one, too, a view that challenges al notions that individual privacy is a value protected by the constitution, a view that seeks to limit radically the meaning of equality before the law, and other views that can rightly be said to be controversial. Biden's approach to the candidate was to depersonalize the proceedings; it's not about some kind of personal response to whether or not Alito is a good guy, a qualified judge, that can be taken for granted; what is at issue is whether or not he is willing to engage in a conversation about the constitution that American have a right to hear.

Check out the first comment - a reader gives a link to a site where you can hear the hearing for yourself on your computer - highly recommended that you do so; why should I have all the fun.
************************************

UPDATE 2: Kennedy is talking now. At his eloquent best. Acknowledged Alito's family. One statement is going to drive the right crazy; that the President has "vowed" to continue to spy at will, without warrants or any superivison, on any and all Americans in countervalence of their civil liberties. Said a good deal more succinctly than that.
Now he's going after Alito's record, including his court decisions - and mentions abortion, good for him, damnit, although I think it's right not to put that at the center of the hearings, that's exactly where the right wants to stage this battle. Wow, Kennedy's doing a check-list a very tough one, of questions about Alito, including why he said he would recuse himself in a case in which he had financial holdings and then didn't.

One aspect that always happens in these opening statements; the Senators appear to be talking past one another, becaue the remarks are prepared ahead of time.

Grassley is up now...same themes as Hatch...Alito is well qualified,

>yes he is, that is not the issue, that is no longer sufficient...

Grassley...and all we have to know is that he will uphold justice, not be political...meticulously apply the law...

>>as if when that is done, there is always only one interpretation to be made...

>>Grassley doesn't think Judges should be on the side of the little guy, should be on the side of the law. Sounds good, doesn't it? That's one which needs carefully countering. Is the law an end in itself...or does the law serve the needs of the nation and its citizens? Can't we ask the same question about the constitution; is it an icon to be worshipped in ritualized ways...or is it a living, breathing document because it still pertains to the way Americans live today.

Naturally, Grassley emphasizes the limited role of courts...the question is do these Republican want to limit the Supreme Court out of any relevance in the lives of ordinary Americans?

Constitution constrains judges just as much as it constrains congress, not sure if Grassley mentioned the President; everytime they emphasize separtion of powers they are stepping into a depthless mudhole.

Grassley emphasizes judicial restraint...Kennedy pointed out a study which should just how conrestrained Alito has been vis a vis interpreted statutary law.

Biden next, stay tuned.

*********************************************************
UPDATE: Spector started off the opening statements; as of now, he's clearly in the tank for Alito, trust me. He emphasized the abortion issue, which Republicans see as a sure loser for Democrats, he made fun of NOW, and his statement lacked a point of view, although he made some vague mention of presidential power vs civil rights.
However, having watched ever minute of the Bork hearings, I can tell you that he'll climb out of the tank if it looks like there is a groundswell of discomfort and dissatisfaction with the thought of Alito as our next Supreme Court Justice.

Leahy is up now. He's doing great. Exactly the opposite of Spector. He's framed the debate to be precisely about the role of the court as a protector of the rights of ordinary Americans against government encoachment. He's being very specific, very tough, even provocative, he's setting up what the political context is, the context being the Bush administration's reach for unprecedented power in the service of an extreme right-wing agenda. A great opening; worthy of reading the transcript; we'll try and find it and reproduce it here. Probably on Leahy's Senate website.

Hatch is up now...exactly what you'd expect, the straight Federalist argument, unelected judges are the problem, interpret don't legislate, which is going to be harder argument to make now that we know that the President doesn't think the congress has any right to legislate something he doesn't approve of...ah yes...we aren't aloud to ask Alito certain questions...and yes, he's rolling out the Ginsberg example, don't these guys ever get tired of lying..oh, that's right, Hatch is a Christian, a Mormon, by definition whatever they say can't be a lie...Interesting, Hatch is quite defensive about the stuff already dug up about Alito's past writings before he became a judge...

Ah ha...Hatch hits on where the right will take its stand, this is a judicial process, not a political one. That will have resonance with a lot of Americans, who wrongly have come to associate politics with something crooked and corrupt, but politics is how a democratic republic does its business; there were no politics in the Soviet Union, except for those between members of the ruling class. Hatch wants the committee to rise above the hue and cry of the masses, yunno, all those petitions, all those emails, (everything that brought Bork down, methinks I smell fear here)...Wow, Hatch ends on separation of power...might be a mistake.
*******************************************************
The setting is impessive, but I'm always moved by these expressions of what I always saw as our civil religion.

Mrs. Alito is wearing a red dress. She's lovely, a professional herself, a trial lawyer. The kids are there, all in all a lovely family.

Alito introduces his family. You'd be happy to have them as next door neighbors. We'll be getting a lot of this, nice family, biography as history, biography as politics. Judge Alito can be a good man, with a splendid family, and still not be the right choice to fill Justice O'Connor's seat on the court at this point in her history.

This session is devoted to opening statements by members of the Judiciary Committee, this afternoon will be devoted to Judge Alito's own statement to the committee.